Some very interesting real life examples in the insect world.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2011/03/pictures/110303-zombie-ants-fungus-new-species-fungi-bugs-science-brazil/#/zombie-fungus-infects-insects-mind-control-early-infection-ant_32852_600x450.jpg

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/ 2005/09/0901_050901_wormparasite_2.html

A couple disturbing links as it's not out of the question for such things to spread to Mammals and Reptiles.

I'm looking at the whole thing with a pretty objective lens. Your taking single source vilification and buying it hook line and sinker.

First of the reason Bush didn't finish off Saddam in the first war had nothing to do with liking him. The US never really liked Saddam. We supported Iraq against Iran but secretly hoped they'd kill each other off as we hated Iran only slightly more than Iraq. It was a "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" kind of thing. We were not even selling weapons to Iraq. They bought their weapons from Russia, it was Russia who supported Saddam and it was Russia who battled UN sanctions against him and who delayed the invasion of Iraq. It was Germany and France who supplied Iraq with the technology to build a reactor and the expertise. The US and Iraq have not been close, allied or even friendly at any time in the last 30 years. This idea Iraq was somehow controlled by anybody much less the US has zero merit or logic. Even the Muslim community could not reign Saddam in which is why most terrorist groups hated him as much as his people and the West did. He was a loose cannon simple as that.

As for Chomsky I need read nothing but that name to no that source has no credibility. The man is an avowed Marxist and America hater. If he said the sky was blue I would look for how that advanced his Marxist agenda. Using Chomsky as a reference would be like me pointing to some right wing blogger as a source of information. Chomsky is essentially a Left wing blogger and nothing more. Your second reference comes from Chomsky also. Maybe you should ask Stalin what a wonderful world Russia was while he slaughtered millions.

Hard to tell just how many Saddam killed as they still haven't found all of the mass graves. Many people were just buried. One of Saddam's sons was a serial killer. On top of that were Saddam's normal murders such as the relatives he lured back from Jordon merely to execute. Athletes who did not perform up to expectations and anybody Saddam suspected of plotting, disloyalty or just plain didn't like. All told it was about a million people total. Not counting Iraq army casualties who should be laid squarely on Saddam's shoulders as he provoked the war, left his troops in impossible to defend situations and had no regard for their lives.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Saddam_Hussein's_Iraq

Has a pretty reasonable accounting of the atrocities. Like all Wikipedia pages you have to double check facts on it but overall this one seemed fairly unbiased and gave a pretty objective account.

I'll admit that the 2 years before the war part was as big an exaggeration as your death toll figures. The million dead at Saddam's hands were over his entire regime with hundreds of thousands killed in reprisal for uprisings in 91.

As for why Bush sr stopped that is simple. The man had no political courage. He took an easy victory and fearing that his allies would dessert him and that people in the US would protest the war if we suffered any casualties Bush tucked his tail between his legs and rejoiced his great victory. It was one of the most shameful things in US history. Bush promised Iraqis he'd support them if they rebelled and he left them to die !!!

There's no mystical conspiracy that caused this. It was idiots like Chomsky who were screaming about how the whole war was for oil that scared Bush into leaving the war unfinished. Chomsky deserves every bit as much blame as Bush Sr for the 2nd Iraq war.

A large percentage of those killed in Iraq after the US invasion were former Iraq Gov officials and soldiers. Many at the hands of relatives of people they tortured to death. Many in militias battling US and Iraqi troops. There were many civilians killed in Iraq. The majority killed by bombs targeting innocents. Americans were not setting off those bombs. In fact Americans risked their lives destroying those bombs when they were discovered. Yes there were incidents where Iraqis were accidentally killed by US troops and probably a few where it was intentional. It's war. The Iraqi army killed a dozen Kuwaiti civilians for every Iraqi harmed by US soldiers who was no wielding a weapon or running a roadblock or otherwise could realistically be considered a threat. It's impossible to bring a military into cities and not have casualties. It's going to happen. Many of the casualties were the result of idiotic tactics. We had no business replacing the Iraqi army and police. The US military is poorly equipped and trained to be a police force anywhere much less in a nation who's culture we had no understanding of. So some of the deaths were purely misunderstandings.

I strongly disagree with the decision for us to stay once elections were held and Saddam executed. After that we had no business in Iraq. Would that have prevented the sectarian violence? No it would not. The Sunnis oppressed the Kurds and Shiites and with Saddam gone the Shiites took advantage to get revenge. The Sunnis responded in kind and the two sides killed quite a few of each other before the violence settled down. If Saddam and his two sons had been blown up in an accident the violence would have been far worse and 4 or 5 million Iraqis would have died in Sectarian violence. The only thing that kept them from killing each other was a common hatred and fear of Saddam.

You act like American troops rolled through the streets killing any Iraqi they could find. That kind of thing never happened. Most civillians who died who were not killed by Iraqis and who were not holding weapons or running roadblocks were killed when a militia opened up on US troops and a stray round hit somebody by accident. What do you expect if you start shooting at well armed soldiers in the middle of a crowded street. Iraqis themselves shot a number of Iraqi citizens by accident in those shoot outs.

As for rationalizing. Dude WMDs can spell the end of ALL people on Earth. No Iraq had no missile system to deliver a warhead to New York and nobody thought they might. However if they nuked Israel do you really think Israel wouldn't have gone bonkers and nuked half of the middle east? Do you really want to contemplate living through a nuclear winter wondering not if but how much radioactive fall out will fall with that snow? Iraq nukes Israel or terrorist who purchased and or stole nuclear weapons from Iraq nukes Israel. Israel responds. Pakistan unloads it's nukes at both Israel and India. India retaliates. That alone is enough radioactive material to disrupt civilization. Enough to cause a nuclear winter. That means no food, radioactive fall out all over the world and billions of dead world wide even if WW III isn't triggered. Even if the US, Russia, China, UK and France never fire of a single on of their nukes.

Nukes cannot and never have been a defensive weapon. The only defense against the use of nukes is the you kill us we kill you and between us we kill EVERYBODY defense. Iraq, Iran, North Korea, they cannot use their nukes in defense. Any nation that has nukes also has the capability to knock out all of their air force, all of their anti-missile silos and their nukes before attacking them. The only possible purpose to have a nuke for a nation like Iraq or Iran is to ATTACK somebody.

Here are some references to attacks on US aircraft by Iraq prior to the invasion of Iraq.

http://articles.latimes.com/2001/jul/26/news/mn-26676

http://articles.cnn.com/1998-12-28/world/9812_28_iraq.03_1_surfacetoair-missiles- nofly-missile-site?_s=PM:WORLD

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/1480015.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/1009636.stm

So who is lying too you? All the world's media including many very liberal sites such as CNN and LA Times to invent attacks on US and UK aircraft and ships or did Chomsky lie through his teeth too you? Oscam's razor says it's Chomsky that is the liar.

As for brutal sanctions. It was Saddam who made them brutal. Iraq was allowed to sell oil for food. Saddam conspired with unscrupulous people in the UN, sold the oil, pocketed the money and deliberately starved his own people.

http://www.cfr.org/un/iraq-oil-food-scandal/p7631

If you don't like that one do a Google search and find 500 references. Sanctions never killed a single Iraqi, SADDAM did however.

And AGAIN it was the RUSSIANS not AMERICA who sold Saddam his weapons. Russia who propped him up and supported him. Russia who lusted after Iraqi oil.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Iraq_(December_1998)

There you will find details of just how long the conflict had been going. The US didn't wake up one day and say lets invade Iraq. Bill Clinton threatened to invade Iraq much of the last few years of his presidency.

As for blowing up the infrastructure well OF COURSE !!! That's the first thing you do when your attacking another country. We blew it to smithereens. We sent Iraq back to the stone age. What's your point?

The very last point we actually agree on. As I said before we had no business embarking on nation building. That was the real corruption. It had nothing to do with oil and everything to do with rebuilding contracts. Cheney and his cronies got filthy rich stealing money from the US and Iraqi governments by taking contracts that were often either poorly completed or never completed at all. Invading Iraq had nothing to do with money, oil or greed or imperialism or any of that. Staying in Iraq DID. At least the greed part. Not that we are good at knowing when our welcome has been worn out. We are still in Bosnia. What possible gain can we have from being in Bosnia? None. I honestly think we forgot we have a base there. Why else do we still have troops in Bosnia?

As for leaving, we already have. We have no more combat troops in Iraq any more. The advisers and other support troops still in Iraq are slowly being withdrawn.

Last, Chomsky is a devious foe of freedom and civil rights. If you listen to him you will find yourself used for his political agenda. Chomsky has no love in his heart. It is a heart that beats hate and nothing else.

I guess technically they are not zombies in the hollywood sense but in the Voodoo sense they are as they only appear to have died but are actually just tranced. In fact if you follow some of the links in the first article you posted there are accounts of people spending several years as a zombie and waking up to discover that not only have they been used as slave labor they were at one point buried and thought dead.

The most intriguing thing about the article is the means of creating zombies and it leaves off the rabies style virus which is the core of one zombie movie. Each of the 5 methods in which real life zombies could be created will create living zombies, though they are robbed of some or all of their higher functions.

The argument to dispel the possibility of zombies all assumes they are both deceased and the only means of communicating the condition is through bodily fluid transfer. Many viruses can lay dormant on door knobs, toilet seats and other commonly used items. Many viruses and bacteria have long dormancy periods, some even decades. Others take so long to reproduce and or demonstrate any symptoms that much of the population is infected and don't know it. HPV for example. More than P of the US population has it. Most people never show any symptoms. For women it raises their risk of cervical cancer dramatically but takes many years normally to impact her health. Both sexes will sometimes have wart outbreaks associated with the disease.

Think of a mad cow or rabies type payload combined with a HPV, Encephalitis type delivery system and dormancy period. In a single year you would see AIDs type infections going on. Before the virus strain could be isolated millions of infected could be running around. It could be transmitted sexually, potentially through insect bites, through bodily fluids, blood transfusions, could potentially cross infect species such as dogs, pigs, cattle and could wind up in our food supply in ways similar to mad cow disease, and of course through direct bites. Rabies for example is wonderfully adapted for crossing species lines. Almost any mammal can get it. It has a short incubation period or it would be a much larger problem than it has been.

If the virus had multi-stages it could be both fast and slow infected. The actually bug crazy eat your brains types might turn a bite victim into a zombie in weeks or months where as sex with the infected or sharing a cup with the infected might take years.

More so, the slow moving might well be a total myth. Just because they are disconnected from their reasoning circuits doesn't mean they cannot be cunning. Zombies infected through many of the 5 methods described in the first link would possess full faculties when it came to hunting prey and might even retain enough cortex to operate machinery, drive and use weapons. They would feel pain and would have an instinct for self preservation. So the big myth is not the possibility of them happening but the likely hood they would at least in early stages be shambling wrecks. Later stages of the disease would likely destroy more and more of the brain until they eventually did become literal undead and once bodily functions ceased they would likely succumb to the elements. Though the capability to continue to attack long after the heart stopped beating would be terrifying and cause major morale problems among the uninfected.

If the infection was large enough, came from a source such as say soy where  of the population would be infected in short order. For example genetically modified soy produces a toxin which shuts down the immune systems ability to target a specific virus/fungus/bacteria. One which humans have long since gained immunity too but which is so pervasive it's a normal part of human fauna, just in quantities too small to infect a person. In short order a huge percentage of the population could become infected. Bites and other bodily fluid transfer including rape (reproduction instincts would likely persist long after reasoning ceased) would inject high concentrations of the virus into a body possibly causing infections that overwhelm the immune system. Thus a zombie apocalypse that happens almost overnight and impacts most of the world.

Zombies in fact might well be able to reproduce if pregnant women were able to survive long enough to both give birth and to raise a child to at least 5 or 6 years old. Old enough where they'd have some semblence of a chance of survival. Motherly instincts are at the core just that, instincts. Language and tool use would have to be learned from example as those tend to be higher reasoning but nursing and basic child rearing could be accomplished though with very high mortality rates due to poor sanitation and environmental factors including possibly predation by other zombies.

As such the 7 reasons why zombies couldn't happen really don't apply except to the recently deceased zombie assuming they are capable of movement at all after death.

Get serious. We didn't get oil from Iraq, the war actually dropped oil production for a long time.

As for deaths, Saddam was killing them way faster than we ever could. In just the 2 years before the war Saddam killed nearly a million of his own people. At least many of whom died in US occupation were the people killing the other Iraqis.

Which part of WMDs are you missing? Saddam USED WMD's TWICE. Gas WAS found in large quantities in Iraq and would have undoubtedly been used again. Saddam tried to buy nukes from the Russian mob and got ripped off. He was trying to buy Yellowcake in Africa. He was suspected of pursuing biological weapons. Disposing of such labs would be trivial so not finding any is easily explained and even if it was only intent that was more than enough justification.

Iraq FIRED on US and UK aircraft. Targeted our ships and aircraft. Violated almost every aspect of the treaty that ended the first gulf war.

It was not invading that was the problem it was staying long after we should have left that was. It was not oil but American contracts that caused that. Cheney & Rumsfield swam in kickbacks and cronyism in the rebuilding process. Oil had nothing to do with it except Haliburton taking US taxpayer money to rebuild oil fields and not doing the work.

Anything as complex and chaotic as 9-11 will have it's share of discrepancies.

First off there is no motivation. We did not need 9-11 to invade Iraq, Clinton was already threatening long before Bush was elected. Iraq fired on our aircraft, targeted US/UK ships and aircraft, violated treaties. Had used WMDs and had been busted cold attempting to get nukes. We needed no pretext to invade Iraq.

Believing the US Government capable of keeping a secret after seeing the spy rings that ran for 20+ years, WikiLeaks, the top secret info that repeatedly finds it's way to the press and somebody thinks that 9-11 could have been pulled off much less covered by this same government who can't even cook a burrito without the whole world knowing who, when where and screwing it up is what I find hard to believe.

Where is the graveyard? After JFK there was a graveyard of people involved. Nearly every one involved in any way wound up dead of mysterious circumstances or vanished shortly after the assassination. Whitewater left a small graveyard in it's wake. LBJ's dealings in Texas left a small graveyard. Where there is conspiracy there is a grave yard. Point out the 9-11 graveyard and I'll start taking it serious.

It would take both political parties to do a cover up as large as 9-11. While they do conspire on some things even then they do it in a contentious manner. Plotting the deaths of 10,000 Americans which was the expected death toll would induce bloodshed as the two parties debated means and methods.

Even as low esteem I hold both parties I find it hard to believe they'd be willing to murder 10,000 fellow Americans and destroy an American icon. I also find it hard to believe that a large percentage of the hundreds of Americans that would have been necessary to pull the operation off would not have rebelled and prevented the action.

The corruption is too pervasive to cure with anything but execution of both parties.

Both parties are grossly out of touch with the people. So badly out of touch that it is hard to see how they could throw off their cloaks of stupidity and indifference and retrace their steps the miles and miles needed to get on the same continent much less page as the people.

Too much baggage is now associate with both parties to ever cleanse them.

The very act of dissolving both parties will serve as a uniting factor and to refocus people on clear and present needs rather than tired old arguments that no longer relate to anything and perhaps never did have a basis in reality.

We need a complete cleansing of DC. If we leave one party around the slime from it will just infect whoever we replace the other party with. We cannot leave the seeds of corruption laying in such fallow ground.

The act itself of burning both parties will do a great deal to cleanse the angst of all Americans.

It will leave our enemies scrambling to figure out how to regain control over the US government. Today far too many foreigners have their hands deep deep in the bowls of our political parties controlling even the most core ideas and functions of them through massive corruption, extortion and political pressure/maneuvering. Starting with a fresh crop will in effect waste huge amounts of their budgets and resources as they try to infect our new government. In the meantime we the American people regain control over our own government and perhaps stem the invasion of foreign influence.

Institutions of ill repute will follow the demise of the political parties further cleaning the political landscape.

Religion has given society many things. Some very good arguments have been made that society itself is the product of religion and I think the biggest proof of such is modern Western society. It is founded upon Hebrew/Greek/Celt roots. Our laws, customs, morals and world view were heavily influenced by the religions of these ancestors. The 10 commandments is the corner stone of Western law.

More so people need a belief of some sort greater than their own interests to form a cooperative society. Religion is in almost all societies that very glue. That reason we put self interest below the needs of others. Without it society cannot survive.

Another interesting element of this argument is that people treat organized Atheists like they were not a religion. Many religions including the worshipers of the Null God as I call them have no deity or so many deities that you might as well not have one. Religion can be defined by a set of beliefs and code of conduct held above all other activity. Patriotism if taken too far becomes a form of religious worship of nation. Many a cult has been created worshiping kings based on this very concept. Organized religion is merely religion of many people which includes dogma associated with the religion, usually places of worship and a culture that comes with membership in that religion.

Null Godders have dogma. For example they believe that war is caused by religion. That is one of their greatest arguments against religion. Yet many of the wars they claim are religious are in fact more mundane. The Crusades for example. Inspired by a Pope who was tired of seeing the Christian world torn apart in petty feuds and who sought out a common enemy to unite Christians and give Europe's war like tendencies a constructive outlet. Led by nobles who went more for the land and wealth they could wrest from the holy lands than for any sense of religion, opposed by Muslim leaders who defended not holy lands but lands they kept because it enriched them. Fought mostly by people who went because they were ordered to do so. A few crusades like the childrens crusade really were religious but overall the crusades were just a giant land grab for both sides.

Other things religion has contributed has indeed been science. In fact more than one scientific discovery has been made by monks trying to prove points in their religious beliefs through scientific methods. Science itself can be a religion to some. This was especially common around 1900 when many at the time worshiped science.

Hospitals and medical care came to exist primarily because of religion. It has been religious institutions throughout history which practiced most medical care.

It has been religious institutions that gave us history. Europe for example would have no history if not for monks having transcribed them and Muslims having preserved European history during the dark ages of Europe. In Asia again it has been primarily monks who served as historians.

Without religion, Christian religions especially there'd be no charity. No support system for the poor, for the disabled or the injured.

It was Christian groups who mostly battled unsanitary conditions in US cities leading to revolutionary changes in how cities ran saving the lives of 100s of millions over the last 200 years.

Religion has it's bad side. Prohibition is a great example of how excesses in religion can create far more damage than the ill they seed to redress. When you balance the sum however religion has contributed far more good than bad.

No way Reagan would have stood by. Ghadafi is and has been one of America's worst enemies. Reagan twice ordered military actions to shut Lybian terrorist activities down. There is no way he hesitates in sending in aircraft, weapons, supplies, advisors and possibly even ground troops. Reagan had a set and didn't need the permission of the UN to act. Didn't need to wait until 100 councils debated the merits long past the time action was possible. He saw what needed to be done and did what he felt was best and explained to the people what and why he was doing it. No hidden agendas, no wishy washy hand wringing.

Lets see Bush in relation to the American people is the key I think. Clearly Bush loves non-Americans. He was more than happy to ship millions of our jobs to them. To lay down and not fight back in trade wars waged against us. Every time the WTO barked Bush jumped and wagged his tail like the well trained American hating monkey he was.

While Iraq was a necessary war Bush almost managed to lose it by not understanding it's importance and allowing Rumsfield and Cheney to use it as a get richer quickly scheme. In bogging us down in Iraq we failed to deal with terrorism, nukes in Iran and N. Korea, as well as turning an American people who were almost 0 for the war into people who were totally split on the subject. This makes it even harder for us not just in popular support but also in the world view as the world has gotten the impression once we come we'll never leave. I can see why. We are STILL in Bosnia. STILL in Iraq. STILL in Kuwait. When exactly do we plan to leave those places?

Bush supports amnesty, calls the Tea Party movement a bunch of Nativists and protectionists. Bush is a corporatist and has little respect for the sovereignty of the US.

Bush continued the disasterous economic policies of Clinton and his father. The very same policies Bush supporters rail against while Obama uses them. Except for scope, who gets the bribe checks and scale is there really a difference between Bush and Obama?

Not real sure how it matters in a debate about Bush but Obama might as well tattoo bi on his forehead. He's very effeminate to start with. I wondered if he was gay the first time I saw him speak on TV. Then several well substantiated reports came out about his experimentation as a college student came out confirming Obama's ability to swing both ways.